Global Warming My Ass

[johnny green balls]

Hate to point out the obvious, but technically we weren't dependent on China or any other creditor until Bush got in the white house. Keep the huge tax cuts (that benefits the upper class tax bracket for the most part), while a war is going on. Whether you agree with the war or not isn't the point. You don't cut taxes during a war.

That was just plain dumb and a major part of the reason we have such a huge financial deficit.

so now bush invented the federal debt? yeah, ok. hate to tell you this but obama running a bigger deficit so far. arguing that without bush the country wouldn't have a national debt is laugh worthy. both parties are guilty of spending more than we take in. and both are wrong for it.

Which social programs do you consider to be "worthless?"

i think you know my answer to that

[newjakecity]

so now bush invented the federal debt? yeah, ok. hate to tell you this but obama running a bigger deficit so far. arguing that without bush the country wouldn't have a national debt is laugh worthy. both parties are guilty of spending more than we take in. and both are wrong for it.

i think you know my answer to that

I didn't say they wouldn't have a deficit without Bush. However, we had a budget suprlus going into 2001 and a $5 trillion deficit heading in 2009. You said that "liberals" weren't concerned about the dependence on China in terms of debts (which frankly is untrue btw) and my response was that cutting taxes during a war was one of the biggest reasons the deficit is at the point it is in the first place.

[slats]

good question and i'll give a serious response. yes it makes sense to break our dependency and here's how you do it.

Step 1: Drill everywhere possible.

Step 2: All tax revenues on oil/gasoline go to the development of alternative energies rather than squandered on BS pork bills

Step 3: All electricity should be produced by nuclear plants rather than fossil fuels.

Step 4: convince liberals to install wind turbines off hyannis port (this is a joke but seriously talk about hypocritical, they don't want wind mills obscuring THEIR precious beach but it's ok for everyone else to drink rainwater and burn their body hair for energy)

problem solved.

Step 1 should be the final step. Once the oil's gone, it's gone. Reserves should be kept in reserve while everything is done to find alternate energy solutions.

You said Step 4 is a joke, which is fine. We have the great plains of this country where open air wind turbines could be put in place and much more efficient than these wind turbines out at sea. Those will require long cable lines and tons of maintenance that render render them rather inefficient.

I'm pro-nuclear. Just has to be done right. Most current power plants are only about 30% efficient right now, while the technology's available to double that.

PS: if you take away subsidies what do you think will happen? you said it yourself, these guys are greedy right? doesn't that mean they will just offset their lost subsidies with higher prices at the pump? i happen to agree they shouldn't get subsidies but it will result in higher prices so be careful what you wish for.

There you go. Pay 'em now, or pay 'em later. That's the American way!

How about some tightly enforced regulation instead? But that'll never happen, either, because this country is run on money, and the oil men have it.

Hate to point out the obvious, but technically we weren't dependent on China or any other creditor until Bush got in the white house. Keep the huge tax cuts (that benefits the upper class tax bracket for the most part), while a war is going on. Whether you agree with the war or not isn't the point. You don't cut taxes during a war.

That was just plain dumb and a major part of the reason we have such a huge financial deficit.

Absolute insanity. Even more so because legions of so-called conservatives who saw little to no benefit from those tax cuts still think that they're a good idea. Someday they might be rich (yeah, right!), and they want to make sure that when they are, they're not paying another 2% in taxes - 'cause that might break them.

[johnny green balls]

I didn't say they wouldn't have a deficit without Bush. However, we had a budget suprlus going into 2001 and a $5 trillion deficit heading in 2009. You said that "liberals" weren't concerned about the dependence on China in terms of debts (which frankly is untrue btw) and my response was that cutting taxes during a war was one of the biggest reasons the deficit is at the point it is in the first place.

"Hate to point out the obvious, but technically we weren't dependent on China or any other creditor until Bush got in the white house."

thank you for retracting this quote.

[johnny green balls]

There you go. Pay 'em now, or pay 'em later. That's the American way!

How about some tightly enforced regulation instead? But that'll never happen, either, because this country is run on money, and the oil men have it.

first, i said i was against the subsidies so not sure what you're arguing about. just pointing out the consequences for doing so, which i can live with. but do you really think a democrat would ever do this given that it'll lose him/her votes once gas prices go up in response?

second, you can't just say "regulate" without offering HOW. what specific regulations do you suggest?

[joebabyny]

On what planet does Apple have a "virtual monopoly" on anything?

Is Apple the only company making personal computers? Is Apple the only company making smartphones? Is Apple the only company make mp3 players?

Yeah, but exon isn't required to provide you with oil. They could pack up shop, fire thousands, pull out all the investment they make in technology, alternative fuels, all the money they spend on buying manufacturing equipment, and take all their capital and play the treasury/muni market. Then where would we be? The market sets the prices, when the market got to high people consumed less and that brought the market down.

The fact of the matter is the cheap oil is gone. Either there is no cheap oil to drill or we the oil companies are not allowed to drill in those cheap fields. The only fields offered to them are dry ones without any real oil or fields that are increasingly costly to drill in. Also, oil companies are wringing out every last drop in their fields at greater cost. A lot of Russian fields aren't even profitable unless oil is in the 90-110 range. IF you want to save the environment then fine, but then don't complain because you aren't paying 1.10 per gallon of gas anymore.

It is the same basic thing as healthcare, there are limited resources and scarcity drives the market. If oil were too cheap we would all be driving tanks that could go 200 mph. If it is too high, people stop buying it and the price will come down. We live in a world of finite resources and we can't combat that by regulating a cap on what firms can make producing goods and services. The market shakes them out, regulations, price floors, and price ceilings is what kills the market.

[SouthernJet]

I'm sure you're proud and grateful for your doctors. It has to be an amazing thing to defeat cancer, and I commend you and your medical team for getting it done.

But to me, that's a separate issue from the extremely high cost of healthcare in this country, and the fact that 1/3 of every dollar that Americans spend on healthcare is given to insurance companies - which are really just useless money-grabbing middle men. Your insurance may have worked for you because of the premiums you pay (I probably can't imagine), but tons of Americans who think they're covered get denied medical treatment every day. And, frankly, I don't think you should have to pay what you do.

Yeah, I get the pride thing. And that's a common conservative attitude, "It's good enough for me!," "I pay for MY healthcare, these people should take care of themselves," etc.

It's not available to everyone, as you even pointed out. But more importantly, it's too expensive for everyone. But this country was built on bleeding guys like you and me for all they can. The public should be outraged at their health system, and the denial of care out there, but these insurance companies have a huge lobbying budget buying the (generally repub) legislators they need, and a mouthpiece in FOX news to keep the masses on their side.

Ironically, I find it sickening.

actually in Michel Moores Health Industry film Sicko, he has a part where he goes into detail how dems and repubs are equal as far as taking money from HMO/Healthcare lobbyists. If I remember correctly, Hillary took the most.

[joebabyny]

You mean it's not because the liberals don't complain about them?

Dude Algore is on their board! Steve Jobs is no fool.

[joebabyny]

JGB, serious question: As a conservative, wouldn't you agree that it makes sense to break our dependence on oil from places populated by people who want to kill us? Wouldn't it be better to develop renewable sources of energy that we could make ourselves the focus of the energy market rather than places like Saudi Arabia and Argentina?

I mean, to me it's just common sense. The best way to screw your enemies in this modern world is to destroy their economy. If we no longer had a need for oil from these places we could pull up stakes and tell them to **** off and they would be powerless to do anything about it because their economy depends on us needing their oil.

Plus if we develop the technology it would create a strong new foundation for our economy that would last for a long, long time.

Obviously this isn't happening overnight. But doesn't it make sense to be focused on making this a reality? It makes sense from both longterm economic and security sense.

But what does capping exxon's earnings have to do with this goal?

[johnny green balls]

But what does capping exxon's earnings have to do with this goal?

cause it just FEELS right and feelings are what is important, right?

[slats]

first, i said i was against the subsidies so not sure what you're arguing about. just pointing out the consequences for doing so, which i can live with. but do you really think a democrat would ever do this given that it'll lose him/her votes once gas prices go up in response?

second, you can't just say "regulate" without offering HOW. what specific regulations do you suggest?

I'm not a legislator, but the price of crude oil has gone up shortly before Memorial Day weekend every year that I can remember. I'm sure there's some sort of way we can put price/profit controls on oil. They do it anywhere there's an electricity monopoly.

As Americans, we pay some of the lowest prices for gasoline in the country because of our relatively low taxes on the product. Being that you're willing to accept the oil moguls raising prices for their profit, maybe you wouldn't mind if the US gov't started taxing a little more and put that money to use finding alternative energy sources? The oil companies benefit greatly by the low taxes on their product, and yet we as a country turn around and give them taxpayer money. It's insane.

[Klecko73isGod]

Yeah, but exon isn't required to provide you with oil. They could pack up shop, fire thousands, pull out all the investment they make in technology, alternative fuels, all the money they spend on buying manufacturing equipment, and take all their capital and play the treasury/muni market. Then where would we be?

I stopped reading there because that is a nonsensical response. I tend to deal in reality.

JGB's response about margin was the correct answer on this. Exxon made record profits but at a relatively low margin (depending on if you can believe their books.)

I will use my company as an example. We get paid commission based not on gross sales but gross profit.

If we got paid on gross sales I could get an order on every quote request sent to me by simply marking everything up by the bare minimum to show a net profit, which in my company's case would be about 9% gross. I would create a lot of work for myself and pull really impressive total sales numbers but would I really be doing my company any good?

Instead we focus on maximizing profitability. If I can get 40% margin for something, I get it. If I need to go low to get the order I do but I try to squeeze as much out of it as I can. No one can blame a company for making as much profit as they can, least of all me.

The point Slats was making is you don't NEED an iPod. You NEED to buy oil in our society. Hell Apple needs petroleum just to manufacture and deliver your iPod. Where the hell do you think plastic comes from?

[Klecko73isGod]

But what does capping exxon's earnings have to do with this goal?

I wasn't advocating capping Exxon's earnings.

[johnny green balls]

I'm not a legislator, but the price of crude oil has gone up shortly before Memorial Day weekend every year that I can remember. I'm sure there's some sort of way we can put price/profit controls on oil. They do it anywhere there's an electricity monopoly.

As Americans, we pay some of the lowest prices for gasoline in the country because of our relatively low taxes on the product. Being that you're willing to accept the oil moguls raising prices for their profit, maybe you wouldn't mind if the US gov't started taxing a little more and put that money to use finding alternative energy sources? The oil companies benefit greatly by the low taxes on their product, and yet we as a country turn around and give them taxpayer money. It's insane.

you know that the price of crude is determined by a market right? people buy and sell oil like stocks - there is no conspiracy amongst the oil traders, people will pay more for it heading into times where it will be most used.

second, you also must realize that the villain here is OPEC. a true cartel (you avoided my correction of your monopoly comment) that controls the production (and by extension) the price people are willing to pay for oil. how will a price control in the US affect OPEC? short answer: it won't. easiest way to break OPEC? flood the market with cheap domestically produced oil. too bad you don't want us to drill...

[joebabyny]

I'm sure you're proud and grateful for your doctors. It has to be an amazing thing to defeat cancer, and I commend you and your medical team for getting it done.

But to me, that's a separate issue from the extremely high cost of healthcare in this country, and the fact that 1/3 of every dollar that Americans spend on healthcare is given to insurance companies - which are really just useless money-grabbing middle men. Your insurance may have worked for you because of the premiums you pay (I probably can't imagine), but tons of Americans who think they're covered get denied medical treatment every day. And, frankly, I don't think you should have to pay what you do.

Yeah, I get the pride thing. And that's a common conservative attitude, "It's good enough for me!," "I pay for MY healthcare, these people should take care of themselves," etc.

It's not available to everyone, as you even pointed out. But more importantly, it's too expensive for everyone. But this country was built on bleeding guys like you and me for all they can. The public should be outraged at their health system, and the denial of care out there, but these insurance companies have a huge lobbying budget buying the (generally repub) legislators they need, and a mouthpiece in FOX news to keep the masses on their side.

Ironically, I find it sickening.

Actually the middle class unionized workforce has the best benefits of anyone. I did a stint on wall street and my benefits while completely adequate were nowhere near those of most union employees. And yes it isn't available to everyone, but 85% is a pretty good percentage. Build up the safety net programs and make sure they run efficiently and without corruption or waste, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and start over from scratch and potentially screw the 85% for the 15%. As for money going to the healthcare companies, do you really think the us government which has no real experience running anything but a deficit budget would be more efficient? Has anyone ever dealt with a state/federal agency that was anywhere near efficient? You want to take the guys who created the irs tax code and have them write up and administer a health program? Look at the absurd bill they wrote, none of them could even come close to reading half of it before voting on something so monumental and potentially life changing, something that could easily sink this country. That is who you look to for efficiency and cutting costs? What about when they start running out of money for healthcare, more taxes for everyone (except for the 41% of the population who pay no federal taxes yet will get these healthcare benefits) and drastic rationing. Don't look for a production increase in the doctors/hospitals/industry as the government holding the purse strings and negotiating rates and terms not be conducive to an increase in production as the laws of economics will not cease to exist just because it is healthcare.

[johnny green balls]

Actually the middle class unionized workforce has the best benefits of anyone. I did a stint on wall street and my benefits while completely adequate were nowhere near those of most union employees. And yes it isn't available to everyone, but 85% is a pretty good percentage. Build up the safety net programs and make sure they run efficiently and without corruption or waste, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and start over from scratch and potentially screw the 85% for the 15%. As for money going to the healthcare companies, do you really think the us government which has no real experience running anything but a deficit budget would be more efficient? Has anyone ever dealt with a state/federal agency that was anywhere near efficient? You want to take the guys who created the irs tax code and have them write up and administer a health program? Look at the absurd bill they wrote, none of them could even come close to reading half of it before voting on something so monumental and potentially life changing, something that could easily sink this country. That is who you look to for efficiency and cutting costs? What about when they start running out of money for healthcare, more taxes for everyone (except for the 41% of the population who pay no federal taxes yet will get these healthcare benefits) and drastic rationing. Don't look for a production increase in the doctors/hospitals/industry as the government holding the purse strings and negotiating rates and terms not be conducive to an increase in production as the laws of economics will not cease to exist just because it is healthcare.

#1 problem with healthcare costs is government regulation forbidding the sale of policies across state lines. funny how the government touts the benefits of economies of scale when pushing for nationalized healthcare when it is the reason we have 50 smaller markets rather than 1 big one which would produce the same benefit without a massive tax burden.

[slats]

second, you also must realize that the villain here is OPEC. a true cartel (you avoided my correction of your monopoly comment) that controls the production (and by extension) the price people are willing to pay for oil. how will a price control in the US affect OPEC? short answer: it won't. easiest way to break OPEC? flood the market with cheap domestically produced oil. too bad you don't want us to drill...

Easiest isn't always best.

The best way is to create and put into use energy alternatives that don't require any oil at all. The more wind, solar, tidal, even nuclear electrical power supplies in the US, the better. Getting Americans off their dependancy on gas-driven automobiles, even better than that. The oil companies squashed local trolley cars almost 100 years ago, but new efficient mass transit systems would go a long way to reducing our dependancy on foreign oil. Maybe not as quickly or easily as drill, baby, drill, but much more effective and long-lasting.

Which goes back to Global Warming. Why is it a political issue? Why is the right so determined to debunk a lot of good (if not perfect) science on the issue when getting -scaring - Americans away from using as many oil products as possible would help to get this country away from it's dependance on the Middle East and OPEC?

We're supposedly at war with these people? Why does the right want to make sure we continue the habits that fund the people we're at war with?

They were perfectly happy to lie about WMD's to get us to invade Iraq. Absolutely fine with misdirecting the public into thinking Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Why not just go along with the global warming thing in an effort to cut Middle East funding?

Probably something to do with their friends' profits, I guess.

[johnny green balls]

Easiest isn't always best.

The best way is to create and put into use energy alternatives that don't require any oil at all. The more wind, solar, tidal, even nuclear electrical power supplies in the US, the better.

must be nice to resort to a deus ex machina whenever you don't have a real world soultion.

fact is alternative energies are years, decades, maybe even generations away from being able to replace a significant amount of our energy needs. so until we work that out we should pay OPEC's gouged prices?

how about a compromise solution as i suggested: drill now, use revenues to hit alternative energy research hard.

you can't get everything you want in life or politics, the skill is getting what you can.

[SouthernJet]

Easiest isn't always best.

The best way is to create and put into use energy alternatives that don't require any oil at all. The more wind, solar, tidal, even nuclear electrical power supplies in the US, the better. Getting Americans off their dependancy on gas-driven automobiles, even better than that. The oil companies squashed local trolley cars almost 100 years ago, but new efficient mass transit systems would go a long way to reducing our dependancy on foreign oil. Maybe not as quickly or easily as drill, baby, drill, but much more effective and long-lasting.

Which goes back to Global Warming. Why is it a political issue? Why is the right so determined to debunk a lot of good (if not perfect) science on the issue when getting -scaring - Americans away from using as many oil products as possible would help to get this country away from it's dependance on the Middle East and OPEC?

We're supposedly at war with these people? Why does the right want to make sure we continue the habits that fund the people we're at war with?

They were perfectly happy to lie about WMD's to get us to invade Iraq. Absolutely fine with misdirecting the public into thinking Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Why not just go along with the global warming thing in an effort to cut Middle East funding?

Probably something to do with their friends' profits, I guess.

eye if the beholder...like anything in life,,no one really knows..junk science or real..lots of facts pointing both ways. so no need to committ zillions until we know.

WMD? who knows. many think they trucked them over border to Syria. Sadamms sister is on record saying so. But again, who knows for sure??

[joebabyny]

I'm not a legislator, but the price of crude oil has gone up shortly before Memorial Day weekend every year that I can remember. I'm sure there's some sort of way we can put price/profit controls on oil. They do it anywhere there's an electricity monopoly.

As Americans, we pay some of the lowest prices for gasoline in the country because of our relatively low taxes on the product. Being that you're willing to accept the oil moguls raising prices for their profit, maybe you wouldn't mind if the US gov't started taxing a little more and put that money to use finding alternative energy sources? The oil companies benefit greatly by the low taxes on their product, and yet we as a country turn around and give them taxpayer money. It's insane.

IT goes up because it is a huge travel day historically for americans and starts off the biggest travel season in this country which also leads into when people with oil heat load up their tanks for the coming fall/winter.

So if you want to put a price control on something and not let the price increase as demand does then you are asking for HUGE problems. Lol, lets put an artificial price ceiling on something that we think is bad for the environment and that we want to ween ourselves off of and is pretty scarce.

China puts an artificial price mechanism in diesel fuel. No matter how much diesel costs, the chinese government sells it at a set price and pays the difference themselves. This is done to help industry as trucking and manufacturing in china uses diesel. This is a huge reason why diesel prices are high and why they were even more absurd than gas prices last year. The chinese population had no reason to conserve or retreat from diesel with price controls set in place. Price controls would have the opposite affect than you would want.

[joebabyny]

I wasn't advocating capping Exxon's earnings.

But you were complaining about how much they make.

[slats]

Actually the middle class unionized workforce has the best benefits of anyone. I did a stint on wall street and my benefits while completely adequate were nowhere near those of most union employees. And yes it isn't available to everyone, but 85% is a pretty good percentage. Build up the safety net programs and make sure they run efficiently and without corruption or waste, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and start over from scratch and potentially screw the 85% for the 15%. As for money going to the healthcare companies, do you really think the us government which has no real experience running anything but a deficit budget would be more efficient? Has anyone ever dealt with a state/federal agency that was anywhere near efficient? You want to take the guys who created the irs tax code and have them write up and administer a health program? Look at the absurd bill they wrote, none of them could even come close to reading half of it before voting on something so monumental and potentially life changing, something that could easily sink this country. That is who you look to for efficiency and cutting costs? What about when they start running out of money for healthcare, more taxes for everyone (except for the 41% of the population who pay no federal taxes yet will get these healthcare benefits) and drastic rationing. Don't look for a production increase in the doctors/hospitals/industry as the government holding the purse strings and negotiating rates and terms not be conducive to an increase in production as the laws of economics will not cease to exist just because it is healthcare.

The government runs medicare, medicaid, the VA, and the system that covers all gov't workers. These are all people who are covered very well. It can be done on a larger scale.

The gov't "holding their purse strings" won't be any worse for doctors than the insurance companies doing what they do today.

The tax cost for most people would be offset significantly by the elimination of a health care insurance system skimming 33% of the money America spends on health care. I'd personally prefer a little gov't incompetence losing money to corporate greed out & out stealing it.

The fact that unions can get their workers these awesome health insurance packages just goes to show that more -if not all- workers in this country should be organized. These so-called right-to-work states are really right-to-fleece-the-workers states. It's a sad shame that the corporate masters have beaten back unions from where they were just a couple decades ago. Even sadder, the workers who believe the anti-union propaganda, or are too scared to organize.

[Klecko73isGod]

But you were complaining about how much they make.

No I wasn't. Slats was.

[SouthernJet]

more -if not all- workers in this country should be organized. These so-called right-to-work states are really right-to-fleece-the-workers states. It's a sad shame that the corporate masters have beaten back unions from where they were just a couple decades ago. Even sadder, the workers who believe the anti-union propaganda, or are too scared to organize.

Well everyone. This is they say in the Legal profession, is as close as you get to a 'smoking gun'

[CTM]

you know that the price of crude is determined by a market right? people buy and sell oil like stocks - there is no conspiracy amongst the oil traders, people will pay more for it heading into times where it will be most used.

All they are interested in is volatility.. if's it's moving they're happy and making a killing.

[joebabyny]

No I wasn't. Slats was.

Than i stand corrected

[Klecko73isGod]

The government runs medicare, medicaid, the VA, and the system that covers all gov't workers. These are all people who are covered very well. It can be done on a larger scale.

The gov't "holding their purse strings" won't be any worse for doctors than the insurance companies doing what they do today.

The tax cost for most people would be offset significantly by the elimination of a health care insurance system skimming 33% of the money America spends on health care. I'd personally prefer a little gov't incompetence losing money to corporate greed out & out stealing it.

The fact that unions can get their workers these awesome health insurance packages just goes to show that more -if not all- workers in this country should be organized. These so-called right-to-work states are really right-to-fleece-the-workers states. It's a sad shame that the corporate masters have beaten back unions from where they were just a couple decades ago. Even sadder, the workers who believe the anti-union propaganda, or are too scared to organize.

You need to look up how much non-union auto workers in states like Tennesee and Georgia do. They make a very decent living and have outstanding benefits and they don't have to pay a portion of their income in union dues.

[CTM]

must be nice to resort to a deus ex machina whenever you don't have a real world soultion.

fact is alternative energies are years, decades, maybe even generations away from being able to replace a significant amount of our energy needs. so until we work that out we should pay OPEC's gouged prices?

how about a compromise solution as i suggested: drill now, use revenues to hit alternative energy research hard.

you can't get everything you want in life or politics, the skill is getting what you can.

Drilling now isn't really a solution from wha I understand.. it takes awhile to get production up to the point where it'd be impactful anyway..

I'd prefer to let the market take care of it.. Oil prices go up, people will respond by using less or investing more in alternatives..

[joebabyny]

The government runs medicare, medicaid, the VA, and the system that covers all gov't workers. These are all people who are covered very well. It can be done on a larger scale.

The gov't "holding their purse strings" won't be any worse for doctors than the insurance companies doing what they do today.

The tax cost for most people would be offset significantly by the elimination of a health care insurance system skimming 33% of the money America spends on health care. I'd personally prefer a little gov't incompetence losing money to corporate greed out & out stealing it.

The fact that unions can get their workers these awesome health insurance packages just goes to show that more -if not all- workers in this country should be organized. These so-called right-to-work states are really right-to-fleece-the-workers states. It's a sad shame that the corporate masters have beaten back unions from where they were just a couple decades ago. Even sadder, the workers who believe the anti-union propaganda, or are too scared to organize.

I would say if these are your real opinions than further debate is pretty much pointless as your ideology is way different from mine, or really what the founding fathers had in mind when penning the constitution. Of course everyone has their right to their opinion, just as we all have the right to vote.

[johnny green balls]

Drilling now isn't really a solution from wha I understand.. it takes awhile to get production up to the point where it'd be impactful anyway..

I'd prefer to let the market take care of it.. Oil prices go up, people will respond by using less or investing more in alternatives..

#1: so because it will take awhile do nothing? do you think the problem will improve or get worse? don't you wish we had started drilling 10 years ago when everyone was complaining about ANWAR? don't you think in 10 years we'll wish we started today? and yet someone will still be saying, "it will take too long to have an impact." all the more reason to do it NOW. of course, if you limit oil companies' profits they won't have the capital or incentive to expand their operations.

#2: normally i'd agree but in this case the market isn't totally in control because of OPEC and their production control results in artificially high prices that are sapping our country of its wealth while we sit on our own oil rather than drill it because we're afraid of a couple misplaced caribou.

[SouthernJet]

You need to look up how much non-union auto workers in states like Tennesee and Georgia do. They make a very decent living and have outstanding benefits and they don't have to pay a portion of their income in union dues.

+1000

One of reasons auto industry of US autos in trouble.

Abnormal benefits (full pension), only 20 years to obtain huge benefits, full pay for quite a long time if laid off etc etc.

Japanese auto makers gave decent wages/benefits without union dues and were able to survive.

[CTM]

#1: so because it will take awhile do nothing? do you think the problem will improve or get worse? don't you wish we had started drilling 10 years ago when everyone was complaining about ANWAR? don't you think in 10 years we'll wish we started today? and yet someone will still be saying, "it will take too long to have an impact." all the more reason to do it NOW. of course, if you limit oil companies' profits they won't have the capital or incentive to expand their operations.

#2: normally i'd agree but in this case the market isn't totally in control because of OPEC.

#1 Why not preserve some of our natural spaces and divert more investment in renewable alternatives.

#2 Bah.. If we start to cut back, Opec increases production to lower prices. They are subservient to the market if they gouge

[slats]

must be nice to resort to a deus ex machina whenever you don't have a real world soultion.

fact is alternative energies are years, decades, maybe even generations away from being able to replace a significant amount of our energy needs. so until we work that out we should pay OPEC's gouged prices?

how about a compromise solution as i suggested: drill now, use revenues to hit alternative energy research hard.

you can't get everything you want in life or politics, the skill is getting what you can.

No so. There's a lot of technology not being put to use on the scale that it can be. As more solar panels get sold, prices go down. If the gov't was subsidizing green technology instead of the oil companies, those prices could be reduced more, and more would be sold, and prices would come down further and the market grew.

We do drill for oil. It's not like we don't. Having reserves is intelligent. Oil is running out. Eventually, there won't be any.

The focus needs to be to get everything off of oil ASAP. Some avenues will take more time than others, so you take them as you can get them. Solar, wind, tidal, hydro, nuclear electricity; electric cars and trains. Improve infrastructure, especially railways, and transport more goods on rails than by highway. This way, as oil comes to it's end, our country is well positioned because we've moved ourselves closer to an oil-free energy society. We could be the leading exporters of this technology to the rest of the world and have one of the world's largest oil reserves on top of that.

Drilling should be the last resort. That's oil that we may desperately need in the future. Spending it now to save a couple cents at the pump would be foolishness. Empty those reserves now could be inviting the country to be at the mercy of foreign interests - much worse than we are today.

[johnny green balls]

No so. There's a lot of technology not being put to use on the scale that it can be. As more solar panels get sold, prices go down. If the gov't was subsidizing green technology instead of the oil companies, those prices could be reduced more, and more would be sold, and prices would come down further and the market grew.

We do drill for oil. It's not like we don't. Having reserves is intelligent. Oil is running out. Eventually, there won't be any.

The focus needs to be to get everything off of oil ASAP. Some avenues will take more time than others, so you take them as you can get them. Solar, wind, tidal, hydro, nuclear electricity; electric cars and trains. Improve infrastructure, especially railways, and transport more goods on rails than by highway. This way, as oil comes to it's end, our country is well positioned because we've moved ourselves closer to an oil-free energy society. We could be the leading exporters of this technology to the rest of the world and have one of the world's largest oil reserves on top of that.

Drilling should be the last resort. That's oil that we may desperately need in the future. Spending it now to save a couple cents at the pump would be foolishness. Empty those reserves now could be inviting the country to be at the mercy of foreign interests - much worse than we are today.

so save the oil until it's obsolete and worthless while we continue to pay OPEC's artificially-high prices until then? i prefer to sell it while it has value, which will generate the wealth necessary to really put the US in the lead of alt energy production that will provide wealth and jobs to our country for generations as we become the new energy source for the world.

#1 Why not preserve some of our natural spaces and divert more investment in renewable alternatives.

#2 Bah.. If we start to cut back, Opec increases production to lower prices. They are subservient to the market if they gouge

#1: it's easy to say "why not save the planet and power everything with wind power!" saying and doing are entirely different things. it's not like if we drilled ANWAR the entire preserve would become a wasteland. oil wells have a small footprint. this isn't coal strip mining we're talking about here. and with the problem of our national debt we need $$$ to fund all this alt energy. i propose getting it from selling our oil.

#2 you're accidentally describing the problem by assuming OPEC is a single producer. it represents a large portion of the oil producing world in an effort to maximize their profit. all of us would benefit if these countries were forced to compete against themselves by competitively pricing their oil rather than getting the highest price possible. after all, isn't that EXACTLY what liberals accuse exxon of doing in the first place?

[slats]

You need to look up how much non-union auto workers in states like Tennesee and Georgia do. They make a very decent living and have outstanding benefits and they don't have to pay a portion of their income in union dues.

These companies have made some concessions to workers to keep them from organizing. It's worth it to them to keep them from collectively bargaining. No one gives away anything for nothing. No way those workers would be getting what they do get if not for the work of the auto unions. Not a chance in hell.

I would say if these are your real opinions than further debate is pretty much pointless as your ideology is way different from mine, or really what the founding fathers had in mind when penning the constitution. Of course everyone has their right to their opinion, just as we all have the right to vote.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution at a time when this country's economy was driven almost entirely on slave labor. Not just African slaves, but white indentured servants, too. Laws were in place from day one to make money for the powerful on the sweat of the impoverished. If you didn't own property, you weren't allowed to vote - and most Americans did not own property. The founding fathers set up a system to help themselves and their friends, despite the flowery language of equality and the pursuit of happiness. There was no equality then, and no equality now. Working people have had to fight since day one in this country for any morsel of rights that they've managed to get.

Organized labor got children out of factories, shrank 15 hour workdays into 8 hour workdays. Raised pay and benefits. Damn communists. As you say, unions still have the best health care. The only way workers really get any sort of rights is by organizing. One on one against their corporate bosses, they haven't got a chance.